DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the RCE dated on May 28, 2025 in order to enter the proposed after-final amendment dated on April 14, 2025. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending, with claims 1, 10, and 19 in independent form.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2025 has been entered by the formal filing of the RCE on May 28, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings filed December 17, 2020 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show each feature from the specification, but are claimed. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s): claims 10 and 19 recite the limitation “wherein the optics die comprises a plurality of V-grooves.” The drawings do not appear to have clearly shown labeling and reference numbers for disclosure for this limitation. V-grooves are shown in the drawings but never in an optics die (see paragraph [0072] of specification), only in FAU 1153 and fiber shuffler 1154 in FIGs. 11B-11C. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed / claimed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. No new matter should be entered. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a lid over edge” should be corrected for awkward prose. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected for the following reasons below. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are also rejected at least as being in dependent form.
Notably, each independent claim 1, 10, and 19 recite both “a realignment region” (e.g., claim 1, line 4) and “a fiber distribution housing” (e.g., claim 1, line 11). However, there is no clarity or purpose disclosed to include both of these structures in a single embodiment of the device. Applicant’s arguments originally filed on January 30, 2025 (see p. 7) suggest that applicant views this configuration as a single embodiment which is supported by the disclosure because FIG. 11D is an exemplary ferrule of FIG. 8B. As noted under “Response to Arguments” (in Examiner Oxford’s previous office action dated on February 28, 2025), the examiner (also) disagrees with this interpretation of the figures and believes that viewing the figures in as related in this way, and therefore viewing the claims and therefore viewing the claims as directed to a single embodiment supported by the original disclosure, is new matter which was not described in the original specification. As noted under “Response to Arguments” (Examiner Oxford February 28, 2025), the Examiner again requests that applicant indicated where in the in the specification as originally filed there is support for FIG. 11D being an example of the ferrule shown in FIG. 8B. Clarification and/or amendment to the claims to remove the new matter are required.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, wherein dependent claims inherently contain the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a lid over edge in the package substrate" (line 2). The claim is indefinite because this phrase does not make grammatical sense, and additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the word “edge.” Clarification is required. Applicant is advised that, for the purpose of examination, the claim has been interpreted as though “edge in” were replaced with “an edge”, “edges of”, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meade et al. US 2021/0109284 A1, further in view of Haase et al. US 2015/0234126 A1, and further in view of Leigh et al. US 2019/0331858 A1.
Note that all cited reference numbers below (and in dependent claim explanations) pertain to Meade ‘284, unless otherwise discussed.
Regarding independent claim 1, Meade ‘284 teaches an optical connector (“optic fiber assembly 310A”; [0042], [0056]; FIGs. 5A-5B, 8A), comprising: a ferrule (“optical fiber connector” 313A; [0044]: “In some embodiments, the optical fiber connector 313A is an MT (mechanical transfer) ferrule”), wherein the ferrule has a first end (bottom of ferrule 313A as shown in the orientation of FIG. 8A) and a second end (top of ferrule 313A as shown in the orientation of FIG. 8A), and a realignment region (main body of ferrule 313A) between the first end and the second end; a first row of optical fibers (“second set of optical fibers” 314A) in the ferrule; a second row of optical fibers (“first set of optical fibers” 312A) in the ferrule, the second row over the first row (see FIGs. 5A, 8A), wherein the first and second rows of optical fibers are in an arrangement of two or more rows at the first end of the ferrule, and wherein the first and second rows of optical fibers are in a columnar arrangement at the second end of the ferrule (see FIG. 8A); and a fiber distribution housing (“cover structure” 315A; [0043]) wherein the first row of optical fibers and the second row of optical fibers are spread laterally within the fiber distribution housing (see FIGs. 5B, 8A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Meade ‘284 does not expressly and exactly teach a socket into which the ferrule (313A) is inserted and therefore also does not teach that the first and second rows of optical fibers (3 14A, 312A) extend through the ferrule and into the socket. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ferrule needed to be inserted into a socket for the optical connector to transmit/receive optical signals. Several figures shown in Meade (e.g., FIGs. 5A-6, 7D, 8A) even draw the ferrule with end structures suggesting it should be connected to a socket. Paragraph [0044], which describes different types of connectors which may be used for the ferrule 313A, also indicates it is meant to be plugged into a socket, as all of the types of connectors disclosed would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as able to be plugged into a standard socket. Meade additionally teaches in paragraph [0044] that the optical fibers themselves “have lengths as needed to provide for installation of the optical fiber assembly 310A.” One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the fibers could extend through the ferrule and into the socket to facilitate the required optical connections.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the optical connector of Meade further comprising a socket into which the ferrule (313A) is inserted and to extend the first and second rows of optical fibers through the ferrule and into the socket for the purpose of transmitting/receiving optical signals.
Additionally, and regarding the amendments to claim 1 on April 14, 2025, Meade ‘284 does not expressly and exactly teach such arrangement is a non-columnar arrangement of three rows at the first end of the ferrule. In the ferrule (313A) of Meade, the fibers remain in a columnar arrangement at the first end. However, it is known in the art to provide optical fibers in a non-columnar, multi-row (also called “staggered”) arrangement in order to increase the density of an optical network. For example, both Haase et al. US 2015/0234126 A1 and Leigh et al. US 2019/0331858 A1 teach staggered or non-columnar arrangement.
Haase ’126 teaches a ferrule (“waveguide alignment member” 114, 814, 914; [0040], [0067] -[0068]; FIGs. 1, 8, 9), wherein a first row of optical fibers (“optical waveguides” 904c, 904d; FIG. 9) and a second row of optical fibers (904a, 904b; FIG. 9) are in a non-columnar arrangement of two or more rows at a first end of the ferrule (see FIG. 9). The staggered, non-columnar arrangement of fibers in Haase is taught to allow for a “hexagonal closest packing arrangement “ ([para [0068]), i.e., to help maximize the density of the network of optical fibers. Additionally, Leigh ‘858 teaches (ABS; Figs. 5, 6; corresponding text; Claims) an arrangement of non-columnar fashion in a staggered configuration in which three rows are formed (6081 – 6083). Such staggering and non-columnar formation allows improved input and may allow similar chip staggering at the input to 604 to decrease heat and unwanted sources of optical errors on chip.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Haase and Leigh, to further configure the optical connector of Meade such that three rows could be recognized at the multiple rows of optical fibers are in a non-columnar arrangement at the first end of the ferrule, thereby rendering obvious all of the limitations of independent claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to increase the density of the optical network at the end where the ferrule is plugged into the socket, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as desirable. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts (e.g. going from two rows to three rows of staggered optical fibers) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Therefore, independent claim 1 is found obvious over the combination of Meade and Haase/Leigh, henceforth “COMBINED Meade HL.”
Regarding dependent claim 4, COMBINED Meade HL additionally teaches a fiber holder (“adhesive” 410; [0053 ]-[0054]; see FIG. 8A — adhesive 410 covers and secures optical fibers 312A,314A, thereby acting as a fiber holder) next to the fiber distribution housing (3 15A) (see FIG. 8A).
Regarding claim 5, COMBINED Meade HL does not explicitly teach that the fiber holder (410) is connected to the fiber distribution housing (315A). However, Meade does teach that V-groove array 311A, which is part of the fiber distribution housing 315A ((0054]; FIGs. 5B, 8A), may “act as a dam to assist with application of the adhesive 410” ([0054]), which implies that the fiber holder 410 may extend all the way to the fiber distribution housing, thereby becoming connected to the fiber distribution housing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the fiber holder (410) to the fiber distribution housing (315A), thereby rendering obvious instant claim 5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to make it easier to apply the adhesive that becomes fiber holder 410, per the teachings of Meade, or to provide additional protection to the optical fibers 312A and 314A, which is well-understood in the art to be desirable.
Regarding claim 6, COMBINED Meade HL does not explicitly teach that a seam is provided between the fiber holder (410) and the fiber distribution housing (315A). However, as discussed in the rejection re. claim 5 above, it would be obvious to connect the fiber holder to the fiber distribution housing, and since they are two independent structures, it would be obvious for a seam (understood to mean a clear delineation between the fiber holder and the fiber distribution housing) to form between them.
Regarding claim 8, COMBINED Meade HL additionally teaches that the fiber distribution housing (315A) comprises glass ({0043]: “[...] the cover structure 315A is formed of glass or silicon”).
Regarding claim 9, COMBINED Meade HL additionally teaches that the first row of optical fibers (314A) comprises 12 optical fibers, and wherein the second row of optical fibers (312A) comprises 12 optical fibers. Specifically, Haase teaches that it is known in the art to use fiber ribbons in optical connectors and ferrules, and these fiber ribbons may contain “typically, 4, 8 or 12 fibers in a line” (Haase [0028]). It would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this teaching into the optical connector taught by Meade and to use 12 fibers in each of the first and second rows for the purpose of using a common number of fibers in the first and second rows of the ferrule, thereby increasing the ferrule’s compatibility with other optical devices.
Regarding (2nd) independent claim 10, Meade ‘284 teaches an optical package ({0057], FIG. 8A- 8B) comprising: a package substrate (“substrate” 100A); a compute die (“first semiconductor chip” 210; [0060]: “In some embodiments, the first semiconductor chip is a system-on-chip” — a “system-on-chip” is understood to be a compute die) on the package substrate; an optics die (“second semiconductor chip” 230; [0060]: “In some embodiments, the second semiconductor chip is a photonic device chip” — a “photonic device chip” is understood to be an optics die) on the package substrate, wherein the optics die comprises a plurality of V - grooves (“first v-groove array” 23 1, 232; [0060]); an optical connector (“optic fiber assembly 310A”; [0056]; FIG. 8A) optically coupled to the optics die ([0026], [0053]; see FIG. 8A), wherein the optical connector comprises: a ferrule (“optical fiber connector” 313A; [0044]: “In some embodiments, the optical fiber connector 313A is an MT (mechanical transfer) ferrule”), wherein the ferrule has a first end (bottom of ferrule 313A as shown in the orientation of FIG. 8A) and a second end (top of ferrule 313A as shown in the orientation of FIG. 8A), and a realignment region (main body of ferrule 313A) between the first end and the second end; a first row of optical fibers (“second set of optical fibers” 314A) in the ferrule; a second row of optical fibers (“first set of optical fibers” 312A) in the ferrule, the second row over the first row (see FIGs. 5A, 8A), wherein the first and second rows of optical fibers are in an arrangement of two or more rows at the first end of the ferrule, and wherein the first and second rows of optical fibers are in a columnar arrangement at the second end of the ferrule (see FIG. 8A); and a fiber distribution housing (“cover structure” 315A; [0043]) wherein the first row of optical fibers and the second row of optical fibers are spread laterally within the fiber distribution housing, and wherein the optical fibers exit the fiber distribution housing and are set into the plurality of V-grooves (see FIG. 8A).
Regarding (2nd) independent claim 10, Meade ‘284 does not expressly and exactly teach a socket into which the ferrule (313A) is inserted and therefore also does not teach that the first and second rows of optical fibers (3 14A, 312A) extend through the ferrule and into the socket. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ferrule needed to be inserted into a socket for the optical connector to transmit/receive optical signals. Several figures shown in Meade (e.g., FIGs. 5A-6, 7D, 8A) even draw the ferrule with end structures suggesting it should be connected to a socket. Paragraph [0044], which describes different types of connectors which may be used for the ferrule 313A, also indicates it is meant to be plugged into a socket, as all of the types of connectors disclosed would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as able to be plugged into a standard socket. Meade additionally teaches in paragraph [0044] that the optical fibers themselves “have lengths as needed to provide for installation of the optical fiber assembly 310A.” One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the fibers could extend through the ferrule and into the socket to facilitate the required optical connections.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the optical connector of Meade further comprising a socket into which the ferrule (313A) is inserted and to extend the first and second rows of optical fibers through the ferrule and into the socket for the purpose of transmitting/receiving optical signals.
Additionally, and regarding the amendments to claim 10 on April 14, 2025, Meade ‘284 does not expressly and exactly teach such arrangement is a non-columnar arrangement of three rows at the first end of the ferrule. In the ferrule (313A) of Meade, the fibers remain in a columnar arrangement at the first end. However, it is known in the art to provide optical fibers in a non-columnar, multi-row (also called “staggered”) arrangement in order to increase the density of an optical network. For example, both Haase et al. US 2015/0234126 A1 and Leigh et al. US 2019/0331858 A1 teach staggered or non-columnar arrangement.
Haase ’126 teaches a ferrule (“waveguide alignment member” 114, 814, 914; [0040], [0067] -[0068]; FIGs. 1, 8, 9), wherein a first row of optical fibers (“optical waveguides” 904c, 904d; FIG. 9) and a second row of optical fibers (904a, 904b; FIG. 9) are in a non-columnar arrangement of two or more rows at a first end of the ferrule (see FIG. 9). The staggered, non-columnar arrangement of fibers in Haase is taught to allow for a “hexagonal closest packing arrangement “ ([para [0068]), i.e., to help maximize the density of the network of optical fibers. Additionally, Leigh ‘858 teaches (ABS; Figs. 5, 6; corresponding text; Claims) an arrangement of non-columnar fashion in a staggered configuration in which three rows are formed (6081 – 6083). Such staggering and non-columnar formation allows improved input and may allow similar chip staggering at the input to 604 to decrease heat and unwanted sources of optical errors on chip.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Haase and Leigh, to further configure the optical connector of Meade such that three rows could be recognized at the multiple rows of optical fibers are in a non-columnar arrangement at the first end of the ferrule, thereby rendering obvious all of the limitations of independent claim 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to increase the density of the optical network at the end where the ferrule is plugged into the socket, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as desirable. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts (e.g. going from two rows to three rows of staggered optical fibers) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Therefore, independent claim 10 is found obvious over the combination of Meade and Haase/Leigh, henceforth “COMBINED Meade HL2.”
Regarding dependent claim 11, COMBINED Meade HL2 additionally teaches a fiber holder (“adhesive” 410; [0053 ]-[0054]; see FIG. 8A — adhesive 410 covers and secures optical fibers 312A, 314A, thereby acting as a fiber holder) between the fiber distribution housing (3 15A) and ends of the optical fibers in the V-grooves (231,232) (see FIG. 8A).
Regarding claim 15, modified COMBINED Meade HL2 additionally teaches that the fiber distribution housing (315A) comprises glass ({0043 ]: “[...] the cover structure 315A is formed of glass or silicon”).
Regarding claim 16, COMBINED Meade HL2 additionally teaches that the first row of optical fibers (314A) comprises 12 optical fibers, and wherein the second row of optical fibers (312A) comprises 12 optical fibers. Specifically, Haase teaches that it is known in the art to use fiber ribbons in optical connectors and ferrules, and these fiber ribbons may contain “typically, 4, 8 or 12 fibers in a line” (Haase [0028]). It would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this teaching into the optical connector taught by Meade and to use 12 fibers in each of the first and second rows for the purpose of using a common number of fibers in the first and second rows of the ferrule, thereby increasing the ferrule’s compatibility with other optical devices.
Regarding claim 17, COMBINED Meade HL2 additionally teaches that the package substrate (100A) has an H-shaped footprint (see FIG. 8B, which shows substrate 100A, and FIGs. 1-2A, which show substrate 100 with a clear H-shaped footprint; [0057]: “The substrate 100A is similar to the substrate 100, except that the substrate 100A includes a blind cavity 710A” — the H-shaped footprint is preserved in substrate 100A).
Regarding claim 18, COMBINED Meade HL2 additionally teaches a lid (“THS” 110, 110A;[0039]: “In some embodiments, the IHS 110 also serves as a lid structure”; [0059]: “[...] an HIS 110A that is similar to the IHS 110 [...]”; FIGs. 3-4A, 9A-9B) over edges (“blind cavity” 710A; [0057]; FIG. 9B) of the package substrate.
Regarding (3rd) independent claim 19, the combination of Meade and Haase/Leight teaches the claimed optical system (see rejection re. claim 10 above) with the exception of a board (line 2 of instant claim 19). The examiner notes that the inclusion of a board over which the package substrate is disposed is the only difference between instant claim 10 and instant claim 19. Additionally, Haase teaches that it is known in the art to connect optical connectors to boards (“printed circuit boards”; [0033 ]) for integration into larger electro-optical systems. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a board in the optical system taught by Meade and Haase/Leigh, and the combination of Meade and Haase/Leight also renders obvious instant claim 19. KSR. The combination of Meade and Haase/Leigh pertaining to independent claim 19 is henceforth “COMBINED Meade HL3.”
Claims 2, 3, 7, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meade et al. US 2021/0109284 A1, further in view of Haase et al. US 2015/0234126 A1, and further in view of Leigh et al. US 2019/0331858 A1 (for each independent claim 1, 10, and 19 (note above section (14)), and further in view of Billman US 2019/0243084 A1.
Note that all cited reference numbers below (and in dependent claim explanations) pertain to Meade ‘284, unless otherwise discussed.
Regarding each base independent claim 1, 10, and 19, see the full obviousness rejections above, noting COMBINED Meade HL1, HL2, and HL3.
Regarding dependent claim 2, COMBINED Meade HL1 does not expressly and exactly teach that the fiber distribution housing is directly connected to the ferrule.
Billman US 2019/0243084 A1 teaches an optical connector (“fiber optic distribution module” 10; [0070]- [0071]; FIG. 5) comprising a ferrule (“MPO connectors” 14a-b), optical fibers (24), and a fiber distribution housing (“shell” 22 and “cassette” 20) directly connected to the ferrule (FIG. 6). The fiber distribution housing covers the fibers entirely in order to protect them ([0071)]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber distribution housing of COMBINED Meade HL1, for Meade (315A) to extend the length of the fibers and be directly connected to the ferrule (313A), thereby rendering obvious instant claim 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the teachings of Billman that a fiber distribution housing (Billman reference numbers 22 and 20) can be made to fully cover optical fibers in order to protect them. Providing additional protection for exposed optical fibers is understood in the art to be desirable. Dependent claim 2 is therefore found obvious. KSR.
Regarding claim 3, COMBINED Meade HL1 does not explicitly teach that a seam is provided between the fiber distribution housing (315A) and the ferrule (313A). However, as discussed in the rejection re. claim 2 above, it would be obvious to connect the fiber distribution housing to the ferrule, and since they are two independent structures, it would be obvious for a seam (understood to mean a clear delineation between the fiber distribution housing and the ferrule) to form between them.
Regarding claim 7, COMBINED Meade HL1 does not explicitly teach that the optical fibers (312A, 314A) are surrounded their entire length from the ferrule (313A) to the fiber holder (410). Billman teaches an optical connector (“fiber optic distribution module” 10; [0070]-[0071]; FIG. 5) comprising a ferrule (“MPO connectors” 14a-b), optical fibers (24), a fiber holder (‘LC connectors” 16), and a fiber distribution housing (“shell” 22 and “cassette” 20) which surrounds the optical fibers for their entire length from the ferrule to the fiber holder in order to protect them ({007 1]; FIG. 6). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the fiber distribution housing of COMBINED Meade HL1, with Meade (315A) so as to surround the optical fibers (312A, 314A) for their entire length from the ferrule (313A) to the fiber holder (410), thereby rendering obvious instant claim 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the teachings of Billman that a fiber distribution housing (Billman 22 and 20) can be made to fully cover optical fibers in order to protect them. Providing additional protection for exposed optical fibers is understood in the art to be desirable. Claim 7 is therefore found obvious. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 12, COMBINED Meade HL2 does not explicitly teach that the ferrule (313A), the fiber distribution housing (315A), and the fiber holder (410) are connected together. However, Meade does teach that v-groove array 311A, which is part of the fiber distribution housing 315A ((0054]; FIGs. 8A), may “act as a dam to assist with application of the adhesive 410” ({[0054]), which implies that the fiber holder 410 may extend all the way from the optics die 230 on the package substrate (see FIG. 8A) to the fiber distribution housing 315A, thereby becoming connected to the fiber distribution housing.
Billman ‘084 teaches an optical connector (“fiber optic distribution module” 10; [0070]- [0071]; FIG. 5) comprising a ferrule (“MPO connectors” 14a-b), optical fibers (24), and a fiber distribution housing (“shell” 22 and “cassette” 20) directly connected to the ferrule (FIG. 6). The fiber distribution housing covers the fibers entirely in order to protect them ((0071)). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the device of COMBINED Meade HL2, both to connect the fiber holder (410) to the fiber distribution housing (315A) and to extend the fiber distribution housing (315A) the length of the fibers to be directly connected to the ferrule (313A), thereby rendering obvious instant claim 12. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect the fiber holder and the fiber distribution housing in order to make it easier to apply the adhesive that becomes fiber holder 410, per the teachings of Meade, or to provide additional protection to the optical fibers 312A and 314A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect the fiber distribution housing and the ferrule based on the teachings of Billman that a fiber distribution housing (Billman 22 and 20) can be made to fully cover optical fibers in order to protect them. Providing additional protection for exposed optical fibers is understood in the art to be desirable. Claim 12 is therefore found obvious over COMBINED Meade HL2 and further in view of Billman.
Regarding claim 13, COMBINED Meade HL2 does not explicitly teach that a first seam is between the ferrule (313A) and the fiber distribution housing (315A) or that a second seam is between the fiber holder (410) and the fiber distribution housing. However, as discussed in the rejection re. claim 12 above, it would be obvious to connect the ferrule, the fiber distribution, and the fiber holder all together, and since they are all independent structures, it would be obvious for seams (understood to mean a clear delineation between any two directly connected structures) to form between them. Claim 13 is thus obvious. KSR.
Regarding claim 14, COMBINED Meade HL2 additionally teaches that the optical fibers (312A, 314A) are surrounded their entire length from the ferrule (313A) to the fiber holder (410). Specifically, the teachings of Billman indicate that the fiber distribution housing (Billman “shell” 22 and “cassette” 20) should surround the optical fibers for their entire length from the ferrule to the fiber holder in order to protect them (Billman [0071]; FIG. 6). Claim 14 is therefore found obvious. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 20, COMBINED Meade HL3 additionally teaches a fiber holder (“adhesive”410; [0053 ]-[0054]; see FIG. 8A — adhesive 410 covers and secures optical fibers 312A and 314A, thereby acting as a fiber holder) between the fiber distribution housing (315A) and end of the optical fibers in the V-grooves (231, 232) (see FIG. 8A).
COMBINED Meade HL3 does not explicitly teach that the ferrule (313A), the fiber distribution housing (315A), and the fiber holder (410) are connected together. However, Meade does teach that V-groove array 311A, which is part of the fiber distribution housing 315A ((0054]; FIGs. 5B, 8A), may “act as a dam to assist with application of the adhesive 410” ((0054]), which implies that the fiber holder 410 may extend all the way from the optics die 230 on the package substrate (see FIG. 8A) to the fiber distribution housing 315A, thereby becoming connected to the fiber distribution housing. Billman ‘084 teaches an optical connector (“fiber optic distribution module” 10; 0070]-[0071]; FIG. 5) comprising a ferrule (“MPO connectors” 14a-b), optical fibers (24), and a fiber distribution housing (“shell” 22 and “cassette” 20) directly connected to the ferrule (FIG. 6). The fiber distribution housing covers the fibers entirely in order to protect them ((0071)). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the device of COMBINED Meade HL3, both to connect the fiber holder (410) to the fiber distribution housing (3 15 A) and to modify the fiber distribution housing to extend the length of the fibers and be directly connected to the ferrule (313A), thereby connecting together the ferrule, the fiber distribution housing, and the fiber holder and rendering obvious instant claim 20. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect the fiber holder and the fiber distribution housing in order to make it easier to apply the adhesive that becomes fiber holder 410, per the teachings of Meade, or to provide additional protection to the optical fibers 312A and 314A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect the fiber distribution housing and the ferrule based on the teachings of Billman that a fiber distribution housing (Billman 22 and 20) can be made to fully cover optic al fibers in order to protect them. Providing additional protection for exposed optical fibers is understood in the art to be desirable. Claim 20 is therefore found obvious. KSR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see RCE to enter the amendment filed on April 14, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under COMBINED Meade from the prior office action (February 28, 2025 with Examiner Oxford; also using Billman) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, those rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art to Leigh US ‘858 (also noting case law for pluralizing a prior art reference) for the amendment of “three rows” of non-columnar arrangements.
Accordingly, and because Applicant filed a timely RCE, this action is made NON-FINAL, with and toward all pending claims 1-20.
Further, the Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant fully responds to the objection to the drawings and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections above. Applicant has failed to respond fully to those rejections during the course of prosecution (under Examiner Oxford). Any further failure to respond to these issues will result in the sending of a Notice of Non-Responsiveness.
CONCLUSION
Note the PTO-892 form references B and C (Ma US ‘501 and Carnevale US ‘953), which pertain to the state of the art of optical ferrule connectors with multiple into and/or output rows and columns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 October 16, 2025